Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to remarks filed on 06/12/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, ll. 9, --target surface [[or]]of the work, thereby bringing the work-polishing rotating tool into locally contact with the work.—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "an axis center" in ll. 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “an axis center” in which the shaft body rotates around is the same or different axis from “a rotation axis” amended into independent claim 1. As best understood and for examination purposes, these axes are the same.
Claim 4, ll. 7, --allowing the shaft body to rotate around [[an]]the rotation axis
Similarly, Claim 10 recites the limitation "an axis center" in ll. 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “an axis center” in which the shaft body rotates around is the same or different axis from “a rotation axis” amended into independent claim 7. As best understood and for examination purposes, these axes are the same.
Claim 10, ll. 7, --allowing the shaft body to rotate around [[an]]the rotation axis
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 2019/0126425) in view of Tawara (US 2016/0118073).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider (US 2019/0126425) discloses a local polishing method (pp. [0007-0008]) comprising arranging a rotation axis (about axis R; fig. 1) of a work-polishing rotating tool (item 3; figs. 1-2) to be inclined relative to a machining target surface (rotating tool 3 is arranged inclined, i.e. tiled about axis B, relative to target surface of work 2; pp. [0085], [0105-0107]; fig. 1) of a work (item 2; fig. 1), thereby bringing the work-polishing tool into locally contact with the work (at contact surface A; pp. [0104-0105] and [0109-0111]; fig. 1), and press-polishing performed by the work-polishing rotating tool urged again the work by elastic restoring force (pp. [0048-0050]; via elastic and flexible material of cap 6 and element 7; fig. 2) while supplying a polishing solution (defined as polishing agent, not explicitly shown; pp. [0012] and [0073]; fig. 2) between the work and the work-polishing rotating tool locally pressed against the work (pp. [0012-0015]; polishing solution is supply between contact surface of tool 3 and workpiece 2).
Though Schneider recites the polishing solution may be used in a form of a suspension with polishing particles, such as finest granules, particles, or the like (pp. [0012]) in order to transport the polishing solution into an active gap between the contact surface and the surface to be polished, Schneider does not explicitly disclose the type of polishing solution utilized, such as the polishing solution composed of abrasive grains consisting of organic particles with an average particle size of 5 µm or more dispersed in a liquid to prevent wear on a surface of the work-polishing rotating tool by preventing direct contact between the work-polishing rotating tool and the work.
Tawara (US 2016/0118073) teaches a method for manufacturing a glass substrate (abstract and pp. [0021]) comprising a finish-polishing step using a polishing solution containing organic-based particles as polishing abrasive particles (pp. [0021]), and the average particle diameter of the organic-based particles is in a range of 0.5 to 60 µm (pp. [0024]).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polishing solution containing polishing particles, as disclosed in Schneider, to consist of organic-based particles, as taught in Tawara, in order for the press-polishing method to function as intended and further, in order to reduce the amount of abrasive particles sinking into the polishing pad and improve the surface roughness of the workpiece (pp. [0010-0012], [0016-0018], and [0053] in Tawara).
Second, Tawara teaches a range of organic particle size that overlaps with the claimed particle size range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the particle size from Tawara from between 0.5 to 60 µm to between 5 µm or more since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Lastly, the Examiner notes the prior art structure of Schneider in view of Tawara satisfies the structural limitations of the claimed polishing method comprising press polishing, while supplying a polishing solution, and the polishing solution having an average particle size of 5 µm or more and therefore, would inherently perform to prevent wear on a surface of the work-polishing rotating tool by preventing direct contact between the work-polishing rotating tool and the work (polishing solution is disposed between work and rotating tool thereby, preventing direct contact between rotating tool and the work).
Regarding claim 2, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing method as claimed in 1, wherein the rotating tool is made of elastic material (Schneider; pp. [0048-0050], cap 6 and intermediate element 7 are formed of elastic material; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing method as claimed in 1, wherein the liquid contains water as a main component (Tawara; abrasive particles are dispersed in water, i.e. the main component; pp. [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing method as claimed in 1, wherein the rotating tool comprises:
a rotating body (includes items 4, 5; fig. 2);
a shaft body (item 11; fig. 2) that has a tip end (defined as upper end of shaft body 11 in view of fig. 2) provided with the rotating body (tip end has rotating body; fig. 2) and is long in an axial direction (defined as direction along axis R; fig. 2) around which the rotating body is rotated (shaft body extends in an up-down direction in view of fig. 2 relative to the rotating body and therefore, long in axial direction); and
a rotation support portion (item 13; pp. [0040]; fig. 1) that supports the shaft body on a base end side (base end side of shaft body defined as lower end of item 11 in view of fig. 2) thereof for allowing the shaft body to rotate around the rotation axis (pp. [0080]; rotation support portion 13 allows shaft body 11 to rotate about rotation axis R; figs. 1-2), and the rotating body is pressed, at an outer circumferential surface (outer circumferential surface defined as outer surface of item 8; fig. 2) thereof, against the work to curve the shaft body (pp. [0085-0087]; shaft body curves, i.e. tilts/bends, as the rotating body is pressed and moved along the work 2, i.e. angled about axis B in view of fig. 1) and elastic restoring force of the curved shaft body causes the rotating body to be pressed and urged against the work (pp. [0070]; elastic restoring force via cap 6 and element 7 cause rotating body to be pressed and urged against the work in stress-free manner; the examiner notes, “urged against” does not require direct contact between rotating tool and the work, similar to applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 5, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing method as claimed in 1, wherein an outer diameter (defined as outer diameter of item 6; figs. 2-3) of a polishing action region (defined as region between workpiece 2 and rotating tool 3) on an outer circumferential surface of the work polishing rotating tool (defined as outermost surface of item 6; fig. 2), the outer circumferential surface facing the work (during polishing, the outer circumference faces the work to be polished; fig. 1).
Schneider does not explicitly disclose an exact dimension of the outer diameter, such as 5.0 mm or less. First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the outer diameter of the work polishing rotating tool to be between 0 mm and 5mm. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The outer diameter can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the outer diameter of the work-polishing rotating tool is larger, then the contact surface of the outer circumferential surface and the workpiece may be larger (defined as dimension AD in Schneider; pp. [0121-0125]; fig. 4), which may speed up machining times and reduce inaccuracies on the workpiece surface; while if the outer diameter of work-polishing rotating tool is smaller, then the contact surface of the outer circumferential surface and the workpiece may be smaller, which may require a more precise, controlled polishing machine to improve the surface quality of the workpiece which may be more expensive and less time efficient. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Schneider in view of Tawara, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the outer diameter of an outer circumferential surface of the rotating tool to be between 0mm and 5mm.
Regarding claim 6, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the organic particles are acrylic particles or urethane particles (Tawara; abstract and pp. [0023]; abrasive particles are acryl-based or urethane-based resin).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider (US 2019/0126425) discloses a local polishing device (pp. [0007-0008]; item 1; fig. 1), comprising:
a work-polishing rotating tool (item 3; figs. 1-2) locally pressed against a work (rotating tool 3 is locally pressed at contact surface, i.e. dimension AD, on workpiece 2; figs. 1 and 4)); and
machining solution supply section (defined as polishing agent, not explicitly shown; pp. [0012] and [0073]; fig. 2) that supplies, between the work and the work-polishing rotating tool (pp. [0012-0013]; polishing solution is supplied into active gap between work 2 and work rotating tool 3), wherein
a rotation axis (axis R; fig. 1) of the work-polishing rotating tool is inclined relative to a machining target surface (rotating tool 3 is arranged inclined, i.e. tiled about axis B, relative to target surface of work 2; pp. [0085], [0105-0107]; fig. 1) of the work (item 2; fig. 1), thereby bringing the work-polishing rotating tool into locally contact with the work (at contact surface A; pp. [0104-0105] and [0109-0111]; fig. 1).
Though Schneider recites the polishing solution may be used in a form of a suspension with polishing particles, such as finest granules, particles, or the like (pp. [0012]) in order to transport the polishing solution into an active gap between the contact surface and the surface to be polished, Schneider does not explicitly disclose the type of polishing solution utilized, such as the polishing solution composed of abrasive grains consisting of organic particles with an average particle size of 5 µm or more dispersed in a liquid to prevent wear on a surface of the work-polishing rotating tool by preventing direct contact between the work-polishing rotating tool and the work.
Tawara (US 2016/0118073) teaches a method for manufacturing a glass substrate (abstract and pp. [0021]) comprising a finish-polishing step using a polishing solution containing organic-based particles as polishing abrasive particles (pp. [0021]), and the average particle diameter of the organic-based particles is in a range of 0.5 to 60 µm (pp. [0024]).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polishing solution containing polishing particles, as disclosed in Schneider, to consist of organic-based particles, as taught in Tawara, in order for the press-polishing method to function as intended and further, in order to reduce the amount of abrasive particles sinking into the polishing pad and improve the surface roughness of the workpiece (pp. [0010-0012], [0016-0018], and [0053] in Tawara).
Second, Tawara teaches a range of organic particle size that overlaps with the claimed particle size range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the particle size from Tawara from between 0.5 to 60 µm to between 5 µm or more since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Lastly, the Examiner notes the prior art structure of Schneider in view of Tawara satisfies the structural limitations of the claimed polishing method comprising press polishing, while supplying a polishing solution, and the polishing solution having an average particle size of 5 µm or more and therefore, would inherently perform to prevent wear on a surface of the work-polishing rotating tool by preventing direct contact between the work-polishing rotating tool and the work (polishing solution is disposed between work and rotating tool thereby, preventing direct contact between rotating tool and the work).
Regarding claim 8, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing device as claimed in 7, wherein the rotating tool is made of elastic material (Schneider; pp. [0048-0050], cap 6 and intermediate element 7 are formed of elastic material; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing device as claimed in 7, wherein the liquid contains water as a main component (Tawara; abrasive particles are dispersed in water, i.e. the main component; pp. [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing device as claimed in 7, wherein the rotating tool comprises:
a rotating body (includes items 4, 5; fig. 2);
a shaft body (item 11; fig. 2) that has a tip end (defined as upper end of shaft body 11 in view of fig. 2) provided with the rotating body (tip end has rotating body; fig. 2) and is long in an axial direction (defined as direction along axis R; fig. 2) around which the rotating body is rotated (shaft body extends in an up-down direction in view of fig. 2 relative to the rotating body and therefore, long in axial direction); and
a rotation support portion (item 13; pp. [0040]; fig. 1) that supports the shaft body on a base end side (base end side of shaft body defined as lower end of item 11 in view of fig. 2) thereof for allowing the shaft body to rotate around the rotation axis (pp. [0080]; rotation support portion 13 allows shaft body 11 to rotate about rotation axis R; figs. 1-2), and the rotating body is pressed, at an outer circumferential surface (outer circumferential surface defined as outer surface of item 8; fig. 2) thereof, against the work to curve the shaft body (pp. [0085-0087]; shaft body curves, i.e. tilts/bends, as the rotating body is pressed and moved along the work 2, i.e. angled about axis B in view of fig. 1) and elastic restoring force of the curved shaft body causes the rotating body to be pressed and urged against the work (pp. [0070]; elastic restoring force via cap 6 and element 7 cause rotating body to be pressed and urged against the work in stress-free manner; the examiner notes, “urged against” does not require direct contact between rotating tool and the work, similar to applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing device as claimed in 7, wherein an outer diameter (defined as outer diameter of item 6; figs. 2-3) of a polishing action region (defined as region between workpiece 2 and rotating tool 3) on an outer circumferential surface of the work polishing rotating tool (defined as outermost surface of item 6; fig. 2), the outer circumferential surface facing the work (during polishing, the outer circumference faces the work to be polished; fig. 1).
Schneider does not explicitly disclose an exact dimension of the outer diameter, such as 5.0 mm or less. First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the outer diameter of the work polishing rotating tool to be between 0 mm and 5mm. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The outer diameter can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the outer diameter of the work-polishing rotating tool is larger, then the contact surface of the outer circumferential surface and the workpiece may be larger (defined as dimension AD in Schneider; pp. [0121-0125]; fig. 4), which may speed up machining times and reduce inaccuracies on the workpiece surface; while if the outer diameter of work-polishing rotating tool is smaller, then the contact surface of the outer circumferential surface and the workpiece may be smaller, which may require a more precise, controlled polishing machine to improve the surface quality of the workpiece which may be more expensive and less time efficient. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Schneider in view of Tawara, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the outer diameter of an outer circumferential surface of the rotating tool to be between 0mm and 5mm.
Regarding claim 12, Schneider as modified discloses the local polishing device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the organic particles are acrylic particles or urethane particles (Tawara; abstract and pp. [0023]; abrasive particles are acryl-based or urethane-based resin).
Regarding claim 13, Schnieder as modified discloses a corrective polishing device (fig. 1 discloses a polishing device for zonal polishing of an optical workpiece, i.e. lens, pp. [0038]; fig. 1) wherein the local polishing device as claimed in claim 7 is used (item 3 is utilized to polish an effective surface 2; fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because they are addressing newly amended claim limitations, as compared to the rejection of record. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Schneider (US 2019/0126425) and further in view of Tawara (US 2016/0118073), which was the previous teaching reference in Non-Final Rejection filed on 04/01/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached on (571)272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights